Southwark Council (202113988)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113988

Southwark Council

29 June 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom caused by a reoccurring leak from the property above.
2. Complaint handling.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a first floor 1 bedroom flat. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. As of 11 April 2021 the resident’s rent was £111.54 per week. This increased to £132.44 per week as of April 2023.
The resident reported to the landlord that he was being affected by constant damp and mould in his bathroom. He explained that a leak from the property above was the cause. This had been ongoing since at least 2014.
The landlord’s repairs guide explains its responsibilities. Furthermore it recognises the right to repair scheme introduced by the government to make sure small urgent repairs, costing up to £250, which might affect a resident’s health, safety or security are completed quickly. The scheme covers leaking roofs or leaks from a water or heating pipe, tank or cistern.
The landlord’s repair’s guide prioritises repairs as emergency, urgent and non-urgent. Its response times are within 24 hours, 3 working days or 20 working days respectively. Its policy states that it will repair a minor leak that is not causing serious damage or a safety risk within 20 working days.
At the time of the complaint the landlord’s complaint policy (effective from 1 March 2021) set out what should happen when a customer was dissatisfied. It encourages residents to contact the relevant service or officer that they have been dealing with as soon as possible. The policy states that the landlord would deal with initial failures informally by making personal contact, where possible, and agreeing what actions it would take. The policy explained that customers could expect a response within 3 working days.
If the landlord was unable to resolve the issue to the resident’s satisfaction, a complaint could be made through its complaint process. The landlord’s complaint policy states a time limit for responding to complaints which is 15 working days for the first complaint phase and 25 working days for the review phase. It expects to keep in regular personal contact with customers until the complaint is resolved, address the issues raised, apologise where it has not met its standards, explain what went wrong and what it has done to put things right.
It explains that with some complaints the landlord may provide a final decision at the complaint phase so that there is no need for the complainant to go through the review phase. This is where it deems that it is not at fault and that its response would be the same after a review of the complaint.
Paragraph 5.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords must respond to a complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
Paragraph 5.13 of the Code says that landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The landlord’s complaints policy explains when it will consider compensation. It states that if it cannot put a resident back in the position that they would have been in but for its mistake/delay then it would consider financial compensation as a substitute. It describes this could be due to the passage of time or the nature of the events.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can compensate for distress, delays and time, and trouble suffered by the resident. Each category has compensation levels the landlord can award its residents.
Section 4.1 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims (England) (the protocol) states that parties should consider whether some form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure would be more suitable than litigation and if so, try to agree which form of ADR to use. One of the options for ADR is a landlord’s complaints procedure. Both the landlord and the tenant may be required by the court to provide evidence that alternative means of resolving their dispute were considered.

Summary of events

On 8 May 2014 the landlord recorded a job to prepare and paint a defective section of the resident’s bathroom ceiling and walls following a water leak from the property above.
In April 2016 the landlord recorded that the plaster on the resident’s bathroom ceiling was coming off and required an inspection.
Although the exact date is unknown the resident advised this Service that he wrote to his MP in 2018. The MP wrote to the landlord and requested that the landlord investigate the ongoing reported leak and subsequent damp and mould.
On 16 July 2018 the landlord’s repair records showed that the resident’s bathroom had been affected by a leak from the property above. The landlord arranged a wash down of the affected bathroom ceiling and walls. It skimmed the affected plaster and repainted. The landlord recorded the repair as completed on 21 August 2018. However, it reopened it on 30 August 2018 for further decoration needs and recorded it as completed on 3 September 2018.
The resident explained to this Service that the repair on 16 July 2018 had taken place following the MP writing to the landlord. He further explained that the attending operatives had advised him that the issue would continue as the cause appeared to be from a leak from the flat above.
On the 7 October 2020 the landlord recorded an unsuccessful attempt to contact the resident regarding a reported leak that was affecting other residents. There was no record of contact being successful. The raised job number was not marked as completed.
On or around 19 January 2021 a disrepair claim was submitted to the landlord. It referred to water ingress in the resident’s bathroom. This was further evidenced in communication records from 26 January 2021.
On 26 July 2021 the landlord recorded emailing its disrepair team. It advised the team to investigate a leak from the flat above.
Between 12 to 13 August 2021 the landlord recorded two more requests for its disrepair team to investigate a leak into the resident’s bathroom from the flat above. It recorded that both properties were disrepair cases.
Between 16 to 25 August 2021 the landlord recorded 4 more entries that the resident’s property was a disrepair case. It recorded the need for trace and remedy of the leak and to update the resident. It sent multiple messages to its disrepair team. There was no evidence that confirmed that the resident was contacted. The landlord recorded that the resident’s phone did not connect and that it had left an attempted visit card. The landlord cancelled the job due to no access. The resident has informed this Service that he did not receive any telephone calls and that the landlord had not left a visit card.
On 26 August 2021 a second disrepair solicitor contacted the landlord. It advised that the defects at the property included damp and black mould on the bathroom walls and ceiling, caused by leaking pipes above. The solicitor detailed a basic chronology as:
1. The resident reported a leak to the landlord by telephone on more than one occasion in 2014. The landlord did not send anyone to inspect the leak. The resident reported black mould growth in the corners of his ceiling.
2. The resident reported the issue by telephone in 2018 and 2019.
3. The resident did not report this issue in 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic.
4. The resident reported by telephone the issue in 2021. He explained that a plumber did attend the property and inspected the property above. The plumber identified that the pipes above were swollen and rotten. This was the cause of the leak. The plumber advised the resident that other trade operatives were required to progress the repair. The repair was not done at this time.
5. The resident received no further communication from the landlord.
On 20 September 2021 the resident contacted this Service. He explained:
1. That there had been constant damp in his bathroom since 2016.
2. How the conditions were affecting his asthma and mental health.
3. How he cleaned the bathroom walls with mould wash twice a day.
4. That he had conversations with the plumber and painters who had previously attended his property in 2016 and 2018. They considered that the problem was from the flat above.
5. That he was experiencing a fly infestation in the bathroom that he attributed to the damp and mould.
6. That the landlord had only sent the operatives following the MP’s letter in 2018.
On the same day this Service explained to the resident that his complaint needed to complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP). This Service encouraged the resident to give the landlord the opportunity to respond to his complaint.
On 3 November 2021 this Service issued new guidance for landlords on disrepair claims and the link to the complaint process. This was published alongside the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
Between the 22 November 2021 to 10 December 2021 the resident was in regular communication with this Service. He explained that the landlord continued not to contact him about his complaint and repair.
On 9 February 2022 internal communication seen during this investigation suggested that the landlord considered the resident’s disrepair claim remained open and:
1. It acknowledged that the first disrepair solicitors to contact it were no longer involved.
2. It recorded that it had received contact from a second firm on 11 November 2021 but there had been no contact since.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord states that it renewed a bath in the property above the resident. It states it fitted 2 isolation valves and fixed corroded pipework.
On 14 June 2022 the landlord emailed this Service. It explained that there was an open disrepair case for the resident’s repair issues. It advised that it was unable to carry out a further review of the complaint as there was potential for litigation. Its response advised that the issue was being handled by its disrepair team, its legal department and the resident’s solicitor/claims company.
Between 15 and 16 June 2022 this Service communicated with the landlord and explained that:
1. The landlord was obliged under the Code to provide a complaint response while complying with the disrepair pre-action protocol.
2. It had not presented evidence to show that legal proceedings had been issued.
The landlord’s response to this Service on 16 June 2022 explained:
1. That its stage 1 investigation had ceased as the resident had submitted a disrepair claim.
2. That its complaint policy did not permit a stage 2 investigation to be undertaken where legal proceedings were being taken.
On the same day this Service further explained to the landlord that it needed to provide the resident with a formal complaint response explaining that it had decided not to accept his complaint due to legal proceedings. The response needed to refer to its policy and give the resident referral rights to this Service.
On 20 June 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it had closed his stage 1 complaint.
On 3 August 2022 this Service issued the landlord with a Complaint handling Failure Order (CHFO) under paragraph 13 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme about its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The CHFO summarised the letters sent to the landlord about the complaint by this Service and the dates sent as follows:
1. 20 October 2021 first contact letter.
2. 22 November 2021 first chaser.
3. 10 June 2022 second chaser.
4. 15 July 2022 final chaser.
On each occasion this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint under its ICP. On 3 August 2022 this Service ordered it to respond to the resident by 10 August 2022.
On 11 August 2022 this Service accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation as the landlord had failed to provide him with a response under its ICP.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord supplied this Service with evidence it had requested. It explained that:
1. It had not sent a stage 1 response to the resident.
2. It now accepted it should have responded to the resident’s complaint.
3. A new complaint processes had been put in place since to ensure cases with an active legal disrepair claim received a complaint response.
4. It did not have a report of damp and mould in the property and no record of service requests made by the resident regarding these issues.
5. It had identified only 2 repair jobs raised in 2021:
  1. The first to trace a reported leak. The job recorded was marked as legal disrepair. The landlord had recorded the job as cancelled on 17 August 2021 due to no access.
  2. The other job was to replace a tap at the resident’s address. The landlord completed this on 2 November 2021.
6. It had no record of any pest control issues raised at this address. It further explained that it could only access records since June 2020 due to a change in systems. It advised it would check with its disrepair team. No further information was supplied to this Service.
7. No further information had been provided by its legal disrepair team to advise of further action post November 2021. However, it confirmed that the disrepair case remained open and senior management had been asked for information. It advised this Service that it would provide more information as soon as it was available. It gave no further information regarding this matter.
On 19 January 2023 the landlord provided this Service with further information. It had investigated further and advised:
1. That its records indicated that it had not inspected the property for damp and mould.
2. It confirmed that there were no inspection reports available from its disrepair team.
3. That it had raised an incorrect work order to investigate a leak at the wrong property.
4. It had encountered several issues when attempting to resolve the matter:
  1. That there had been two solicitors involved and both stopped acting on the resident’s behalf.
  2. The repair issue was hard to find and required several visits.
  3. That the neighbour had been hospitalised. This delayed progress.
  4. Previous resident services officers seemingly did not engage with the resident “to some extent” and kept poor records. It recognised that it could have reduced the delays that the resident experienced.
5. It advised that it had remedied the repair need at the property above in February 2022.
6. It would seek to contact the resident to arrange a new inspection and produce a report of repairs. It would complete any identified repairs and address liability / compensation concerns.
On 9 February 2023 internal communication seen during this investigation suggested that the landlord considered the resident’s disrepair claim remained open. However, it recorded that there had been no contact by the second disrepair solicitor since 11 November 2021
During the course of this investigation in May 2023, the resident informed this Service:
1. That he had attempted to start a disrepair claim simply due to the landlord’s inaction regarding the leak from the property above and the subsequent damp and mould that he had been experiencing for years.
2. That he had spoken to two separate solicitor firms during 2021 who had carried out cold call visits to his property. He had initially agreed at separate times for each of them to act on his behalf as he had not been contacted by the landlord.
3. That he had not contacted or pursued his claim through the solicitors since late 2021.
4. That he had identified that the solicitors were simply seeking a means of making money from his claim.
5. That the leak from the property above had been fixed around February 2022 and that his walls had since dried out. He advised this Service that the landlord did not attend or communicate with him. He explained that he had spoken directly to a contractor who had been on site replacing bathrooms in other flats on behalf of the landlord. He asked it to look at his property. The resident further explained that the contractor helped him by speaking to the neighbour, gained access and resolved the leak.
6. The resident explained that he would previously avoid using his bathroom due to the mould. He described shaving and washing in the kitchen and not having his family visit. He was concerned for his grandchildren’s health. He described that he has had a collapsed lung and considers the mould had a detrimental affected on his asthma and health.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord informed this Service that there were no repair records indicating works relating to damp and mould or follow on works since the resolution of the leak from above on 24 February 2022. It also explained that its legal disrepair team had advised on 17 January 2023 that it would contact the resident to arrange a new inspection. However this was not escalated at the time. It apologised for this oversight and requested an urgent inspection of the property by its damp and mould team. The landlord provided a copy of this urgent request to this Service.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is evident that the resident considered that the leak had caused damp and mould within his property. He described living in these conditions as having a detrimental impact on his asthma and mental health. He also advised that he has since had a collapsed lung. This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and how this related to the complaints reported. This Service has not determined whether the landlord was responsible for any deterioration in health. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer.
The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. This Service is unable to give legal advice and cannot comment on this matter further.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom caused by a reoccurring leak from the property above

It is recognised that the situation has been distressing for the resident over a considerable period of time.
The landlord’s repair records confirmed it completed a repair to the bathroom ceiling in May 2014. However, the resident explained to this Service that the leak was never properly resolved and he continued to be affected by mould growth for years. He advised this Service that he called and reported the issues to the landlord on more than one occasion but it did not send anyone to investigate his concerns until April 2016. He advised the landlord continued with this delayed or no response until resolution in February 2022. This was not in line with the landlord’s 20-day non-emergency time scales as set out in its repair policy.
The resident explained that the landlord improved the decorative condition of the bathroom due to the ongoing leak in July 2018. However he explained that the landlord had not responded to any of his reports of the leak. It only reacted when he asked his MP for help. The resident further explained that the leak was not fixed and the new decoration was soon affected.
From that repair, the resident described that the attending operatives had been supportive but recognised that the leak had been an issue previously. There is no evidence that the landlord tried to access the property above and repair the leak around this time. The resident advised the mould continued to affect his bathroom and the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue continued.
The landlord attempted to visit the resident’s property in October 2020. The records indicate that the visit was due to a leak affecting other residents of the block. The landlord’s records state that this visit was unsuccessful and the job was not completed. There was no explanation why there were no further records or attempts to contact the resident to investigate the reported leak at this time. The landlord was not proactive in its approach to resolve the reported concerns. This was not reasonable.
In January 2021 the landlord recorded the resident’s first disrepair claim. Given that this communication detailed the reason for the claim, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to contact the resident to arrange a repair. The claim would have indicated the impact on the resident and the potential damage being caused to the property. However, the evidence supplied indicates that the landlord continued not to communicate with the resident, handing the matter to its disrepair team. Having handed the matter to its disrepair team the landlord failed to address the repair and only attempted one unsuccessful visit a further 6 months later. Therefore, there was evidence of failure in the landlord’s response to the leak and subsequent damp and mould at this address.
The second disrepair solicitor gave the landlord a basic chronology of events in its letter in August 2021. The letter suggested that the landlord had failed to investigate the issues properly since 2014.
As a result of the claim made by the first solicitor in January 2021, the landlord’s records already indicated from July 2021 that the resident’s property required an inspection by its disrepair team. However it failed to successfully contact him. It cancelled the job after one attempted visit that was raised for the wrong address. There was no further evidence at this stage that the landlord returned to investigate the repair need. A copy of the second solicitor’s letter has been seen by this Service. Given the details of the black mould and leak within it, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not make further attempts to contact the resident. It had acknowledged his disrepair claim yet it had failed to communicate with him. Misinterpretation of the pre-action protocol appears to be a partial explanation for the repair remaining outstanding. However, the lack of communication via the landlord’s disrepair team appears critical to the delays experienced. This was not reasonable.
The resident has described to this Service that he had been affected by the ongoing leak and subsequent mould growth since at least 2014. Although the landlord made some effort to resolve the decorative issues for the resident in 2016 and 2018, he informed this Service that the leak from above was never fixed. Any decoration completed by the landlord or himself was only ever temporary and mould would return.
The resident explained reporting this issue to the landlord without success and was reliant on his MP in 2018. However, this was again only a decorative repair that required two attempts to improve his bathroom. The landlord has acknowledged in its email to this Service in January 2023 that its resident services officers had not “engaged to an extent with the resident and kept poor records.” It is therefore reasonably possible that the resident’s concerns were not being reported appropriately and he had been affected by the leak and mould for some years.
Although it has not been possible to identify exactly when the resident first raised his complaint with the landlord, it was evident within the landlord’s repair records of an issue from July 2018. Furthermore, the resident considered it necessary to raise a disrepair claim as the leak and mould remained unresolved. This was evidenced by the landlord’s records as first being made on 19 January 2021. It is also evident that it took the landlord until 22 February 2022 to resolve the repair. Therefore, the landlord failed to put things right within a reasonable time and outside of its repair policy.
The resident informed this Service that he avoided using the bathroom at the property as much as possible, instead washing and shaving in his kitchen sink. He also described having to wash the mould twice daily to minimise the impact on his health.
Overall, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom caused by a reoccurring leak from the property above. The Ombudsman will award compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. The compensation order will include a rent reduction element based on a refund of around 20% of £100 per week over the duration of 188 weeks. This considers the period 16 July 2018 to 22 February 2022. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund. The remainder of the compensation awarded will address the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was inappropriate and amounts to severe maladministration as:
1. The landlord acknowledged in January 2021 that the resident had submitted a disrepair claim. Rather than engage with the resident to address the service request and resolve the complaint satisfactorily, the landlord disengaged from communication, handing management of the repair and related complaint to its disrepair team. There was no evidence of any attempts to communicate with the resident regarding his complaint before or after an unsuccessful repair visit in August 2021.
2. This Service wrote to the landlord on 4 separate occasions requesting the landlord investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint under its ICP. It failed to respond to these requests and this Service issued a CHFO on 3 August 2022. At this stage the resident’s complaint had been open for at least 19 months.
3. The landlord continued to stand by its position that it was unable to carry out any further review of the resident’s complaint as it had an open disrepair claim. It was however unable to provide this Service with any evidence that legal proceedings had commenced and should therefore have continued to ensure that the resident’s concerns were addressed. It failed to do this and caused the resident further distress and inconvenience while his complaint remained unresolved.
When a landlord receives correspondence initiating the protocol, it is important that it does not disengage from any open complaint or the repair issue itself. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 says that “The Ombudsman’s view is that a matter does not become ‘legal’ until proceedings have been issued and following the pre-action protocol does not constitute proceedings, and that there is no reason landlords cannot continue to try and resolve matters though the complaints process until that time.” A landlord should be clear with the resident on how it is handling correspondence, whether under the complaints process, the protocol or both and clearly communicate to the resident when a complaint has exhausted its process.
The Spotlight report also highlights the importance of making effective use of complaint procedures and reducing the need for resident’s resorting to disrepair claims. These claims may take longer and often leave the problem unresolved. As has been evidenced in this case.
As the pre-action protocol for housing disrepair cases specifically says that one of the options for alternative dispute resolution is a landlord’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to allow a tenant to access this, unless it had good reason not to.
It was appropriate that the landlord informed this Service in January 2023 that it had since recognised its complaint handling failures when handling complaints with open disrepair claims. It advised that it had amended its complaint process and active legal disrepair claims now received complaint responses in line with its complaint handling policy.
When considering the level of redress required to reflect the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble incurred by the resident, an order has been made to reflect the identified severe maladministration. Therefore, compensation has been ordered at the higher end of the remedies guidance available to this Service.

The landlord’s record keeping

The investigation identified problems with the landlord’s record keeping. It acknowledged in its email to this Service in January 2023 that its resident services officers had not “engaged to an extent with the resident and kept poor records.” Therefore it is possible that the resident’s concerns were not being recorded appropriately. The landlord acknowledged that this would have left gaps and delays could have been reduced had it kept proper records.
The landlord also acknowledged that it had raised work orders to identify the leak on the wrong property. Therefore a visit was unsuccessful. This led to the job being incorrectly cancelled in August 2021 and further delayed the repair.
Reference was also made to a new IT system that had left the landlord with limited records for this address. Although it was specifically referring to its review of any pest related reports, it was concerning that the landlord had no information for this property.
The landlord also acknowledged in May 2023 that it communicated internally to arrange a new inspection with the resident. This was discussed in January 2023 but remained outstanding as of May 2023. This failure had only been identified during contact from this Service. It was not reasonable that the landlord did not have sufficient record keeping in place to monitor and identify that the required inspection had not taken place.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repair processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The landlord identified and acknowledged that this did not always take place and evidently delayed the progress of addressing the resident’s issues.
There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, caused by a reoccurring leak in his bathroom from the property above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

From the evidence supplied, it is reasonable to believe that the resident’s reports of a leak and mould growth went unanswered by the landlord for some time prior to him instructing a solicitor in January 2021. Even after the first disrepair claim in January 2021 the landlord failed to communicate with the resident and failed to take a proactive approach to investigate and resolve the resident’s concerns from July 2018. The repair was not resolved until the resident spoke directly to a contractor who was on site for other residents needs in February 2022.
There was misinterpretation of the pre-action protocol and its interaction with the landlord’s complaints policy. Despite earlier opportunities to escalate the complaint, the landlord failed to follow its own policy, causing significant delays for the resident and prolonging his route to redress. The landlord acknowledged its failing to this Service in January 2023. The landlord advised that it would complete repairs and address liability / compensation. No evidence has been supplied to show that the landlord has apologised or considered any compensation for its complaint handling failures.
The landlord acknowledged that it did not keep appropriate records to demonstrate that it had either communicated with the resident or its internal departments. This caused avoidable delays and it failed to meet its repair obligations in line with its policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay direct to the resident a total of £5,060 in compensation. This comprises:
  1. £3,760 rent reimbursement for loss of enjoyment/amenity caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom caused by a reoccurring leak from the property above.
  2. £1,000 in respect of the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  3. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s delays as a result of its record keeping.
The landlord must update this Service once payment has been made.
Within 4 weeks the landlord should ensure that all staff have received complaint handling training in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and are familiar with the changes that the landlord referred to as a “new complaint processes.” This will help ensure cases with an active legal disrepair claim receive a complaint response.
Within 4 weeks provide this Service with a copy of the inspection report that the landlord advised that it would arrange in its email to this Service on 24 May 2023. This was an outstanding action from 19 January 2023. As explained in the landlord’s email in January 2023, the report should include:
1. An assessment of any remaining damp and mould and a schedule of any works required to resolve the issue. Including:
  1. Any identified remedial damage identified from the leak.
  2. Details of any necessary repairs and decoration.
The landlord is to carry out a ‘lessons learned’ exercise using this case. It should identify how it identifies, responds to, and monitors disrepair cases. It should consider producing a damp and mould policy. In informing its decision the landlord should self-assess against the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould. These steps should help prevent repair delays that could have serious health and safety implications. The landlord is to provide evidence to this Service in four weeks as to its findings and any associated changes or improvements to its procedures, and any training provided.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) (May 2023) and self-assess against the recommendations in that report.